MANAGER Vs. K P SHREEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 28 & 58 of 2012 dated 14.08.2013.

(2.) In the Complaint Case, the Respondent/Complainant was the RC Owner cum permit holder of pucca route bus No. KL 56/A 1602, manufactured by Petitioner No.3/Opposite Party No.1, sold by Petitioner No.1/Opposite Party No.2 and serviced by Petitioner No.2/Opposite Party No.3. The vehicle was hypothecated with Muthoot Financiers and Rs.28,700.00 had to be remitted every month. The Complainant stated that there was an inherent manufacturing defect with the vehicle, namely low mileage, huge smoke and less pulling, wobbling of the steering, heavy wear and tear for the front tyres of the vehicle, intermittent breaking of accelerator cable, tight gear lever, wearing of the break liner on one side, clutch disk damage and rear axle complaint. Through defects were attended by Petitioner No.2, the defects could not be rectified fully because of the inherent manufacturing defects. Due to the breakdown of the vehicle, the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.8 lakhs. During the warranty period, the Complainant had to spend Rs.1,50,000.00 on spare parts and repairing charges. The vehicle was sent in July 2009 for pump work and Petitioner No.2 could not rectify and the vehicle was got stranded on the road from 23.07.2009. The Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint and prayed for compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. She prayed for replacement of the vehicle with a new and defect free vehicle or payment of price of the vehicle, i.e., Rs.7,56,000.00 with 18% interest from 29.02.2008 till payment. The other relief claimed was payment of Rs.8 lakhs for the loss incurred, Rs.1 Lakh towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.

(3.) Notice was served on the Petitioners. Petitioner No.2 filed written statement and Petitioners No.1 and 3 also adopted the same.The Petitioners admitted that the Respondent purchased the Eicher Passenger mini bus chassis 11.10, from Petitioner No.1 on 28.02.2008, which was manufactured by Petitioner No.3 and serviced by Petitioner No.2, branch cum service centre of Petitioner No.1 in Wayanad district. The Respondent was earlier having another bus which was also manufactured and sold by the Petitioners. The Respondent purchased new chassis by exchanging the above said old bus. The Petitioners had not given any assurance regarding the mileage of the vehicle since the same depended on usage, road condition and other circumstances. The vehicle chassis was sold to the Complainant on 28.02.2008 and the warranty period was for one year. The warranty period of the said vehicle was already over. The engine and gear box of the vehicle was having 3 years warranty, from the date of purchase, subject to conditions. It was true that Petitioner No.2 and 3 were hesitating to repair the said vehicle since the Respondent was always demanding free service even after the warranty period. The Respondent made a complaint of less pulling after completion of Rs.50,000.00 kilometers. The Complaint was attended by the Petitioners forthwith. The Complaint on frequent breaking of accelerator cable was a body related one. This Complaint occurred due to the peculiarities in the body building. The gear lever tight if any, could be repaired at the cost of the Respondent, since the warranty period was over. The same could be cured by replacing its rubber bushes. The complaints that were reported during the warranty period were rectified by the Petitioners. It is true that the clutch disc of the vehicle was replaced 4 times and pressure plate replaced twice. The normal life of the clutch disc was about 40,000.00 kilometers. Damage of the clutch disc and pressure plate also depended on the driving style and road conditions and usage of clutch. The complaints reported were promptly attended by Petitioner No.2 and there are no manufacturing defect in the vehicle, as alleged in the Complaint. The vehicle chassis supplied to the Respondent was free from all sorts of manufacturing defects, defects in material or workmanship. The Respondent may have paid labour charges or cost of spare parts which were not covered by the warranty conditions. The Respondent had not suffered any loss of income due to the vehicle sold by the Petitioners. The Respondent was not entitled for replacement or return of sale consideration with interest. The Complaints were due to the mishandling of the vehicle and due to natural wear and tear. The Legal notice received by the Petitioners was promptly replied mentioning the facts. The Respondent's request to exchange the battery with a bigger sized one, was also undertaken by the Petitioners free of cost as a customer goodwill gesture. The Petitioners replaced brake liner of the vehicle free of cost. The Petitioners replaced silencer pipe, clutch disc and pressure plates free of cost. Since the demand of the Respondent for life long free service was rejected by the Petitioners, the Respondent was inimical to the Petitioners, which led to the institution of a false complaint. The Respondent was not entitled to any relief as prayed. The above complaint was filed by suppressing material facts and raising false allegations, which were intended only to tarnish the goodwill of the Petitioners. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the above Complaint with costs.